“I support my colleague's change to the government's economic update. The government is spending too much money and leaving the debt for young Canadians. I want my colleague to say more about why this budget update hurts Canadians.”

“Mr. Speaker, in addition to his speech, my colleague has moved a great amendment to what is a disastrous fiscal update from the government. It seems to be unable, despite labelling itself as a “new” Liberal government, to break itself of the habit of continuing to rob the piggy bank of young Canadians and future generations to blow the credit card budget on Liberal fat-cat projects. I wonder if my colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge has a few more comments to put on the record about what a disaster this fiscal update is for Canadians.”

“The government is doubling the deficit and will spend $80 billion on debt interest. That money should go to health care, lower taxes, or housing instead. The Prime Minister is repeating the same mistakes as the last Liberal government.”

“Mr. Speaker, we would think, given all the turmoil and the disastrous record of the Liberal government over the last 10 years, this “new” government, as Liberals like to label themselves, would have easily been able to divorce itself from the disastrous track record and trajectory of the Liberal government. Instead, as we learned this week, it has decided to double the deficit and increase the interest payment on the debt to $80 billion, money that could be used for health care transfers, to lower taxes or for housing. Instead, it is being used to rob a generation of growth and opportunity. We thought the current Prime Minister would be different. Instead, we realize he is just another Liberal.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Respect 91 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “he is just another Liberal”.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 36 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“I do not support this budget. It adds debt, takes away future opportunities, and does not help people. Over $1 trillion in business investment has left Canada, jobs are disappearing, and more people will need employment insurance.”

“Mr. Speaker, like many things in this budget, there are no solutions. This budget is full of empty promises. It is full of nothing more than a bunch of announcements that do nothing for people other than to serve the purpose of adding debt and robbing opportunity from a future generation. Unfortunately, jobs are fleeing this country. Young people are going to have less and less opportunity. We have seen that over $1 trillion of capital flight has occurred here in Canada, with the difference between foreign direct investment and capital flight accelerating. More and more people are going to require employment insurance if this keeps up because, really, the government is not providing the conditions for any future opportunity in this country.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Does everyone agree to let the member share his speaking time? Everyone agrees.”

“Does the member have unanimous consent to split his time? Some hon. members: Agreed.”

“The Liberals are using their committee majority to hold meetings in secret. This keeps Canadians and other politicians from seeing important information and joining debates. I want my colleague to tell us more about this.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned several cases where the government failed to consult properly and where it lacked transparency. He talked about a worrisome trend that we have seen this week now that the Liberals have a majority in committee. They have been holding committee meetings in camera and preventing Canadians and other parliamentarians from having access to important information and participating in debates. Can my colleague tell us more about his concerns?”

“The government removed the minister for mental health and addictions and is ignoring the drug crisis. I want to know how this problem is also affecting Quebec.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his thoughtful remarks. As he can see from my exchanges with him and his colleagues in French, I want to understand the needs of all Canadians, including those in Quebec. We share concerns about forestry and the government’s lack of attention to major challenges facing our communities. What struck me was the absence of the term “substance abuse”. The government eliminated the position of minister of mental health and addictions and does not seem to care about the crisis plaguing my community. To what extent could Quebec be affected by this as well?”